Methodologies for developing and applying consensus-based recommendations in epilepsy care: A narrative review

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Epilepsia Pub Date : 2026-03-23 Epub Date: 2025-12-15 DOI:10.1111/epi.70039
Rowan Haffner, Brian Mathew, Francesco Brigo, Anila Qasim, Victoria San Antonio-Arce, Houda Ben Ayed, Edoardo Ferlazzo, Churl-Su Kwon, Kheng Seang Lim, James W. Mitchell, Muhammad A. Salisu, Kette Valente, Kollencheri Puthenveettil Vinayan, Colin B. Josephson, Nathalie Jette
{"title":"Methodologies for developing and applying consensus-based recommendations in epilepsy care: A narrative review","authors":"Rowan Haffner,&nbsp;Brian Mathew,&nbsp;Francesco Brigo,&nbsp;Anila Qasim,&nbsp;Victoria San Antonio-Arce,&nbsp;Houda Ben Ayed,&nbsp;Edoardo Ferlazzo,&nbsp;Churl-Su Kwon,&nbsp;Kheng Seang Lim,&nbsp;James W. Mitchell,&nbsp;Muhammad A. Salisu,&nbsp;Kette Valente,&nbsp;Kollencheri Puthenveettil Vinayan,&nbsp;Colin B. Josephson,&nbsp;Nathalie Jette","doi":"10.1111/epi.70039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Consensus-based recommendations (CBRs) are essential for health care decision-making when evidence is limited or conflicting. They can be developed using established methodologies such as the Delphi technique, the nominal group technique (NGT), and the RAND Corporation/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method (RAM). This review explores the advantages and disadvantages of these methods and their applications in epilepsy. A narrative review using PubMed (November 22, 2017 to November 22, 2022) was undertaken examining publications describing Delphi, NGT, and RAM. The frequency of use of each method and their applications in epilepsy care were also reviewed (1966 to October 31, 2023). Sixteen articles were included describing the different consensus-based methods. The advantages and disadvantages of each method varied widely. The Delphi technique, the most widely used method, emerged as adaptable for instances with limited evidence or impracticality of face-to-face interactions. Although NGT favors prompt consensus in single-session formats, the RAM offers a balanced approach with its hybrid structure. We identified 64 epilepsy studies that used consensus methods, with 58 utilizing the most widely used technique, the Delphi. The Delphi guided consensus mostly for management including for individuals with rare conditions such as myoclonic–atonic seizures or in those with epilepsy and pregnancy. The NGT guided expert consensus on the use of cannabidiol for Dravet and Lennox–Gastaut syndromes and facilitated decision-making among pharmacy students addressing ethical issues related to patients with epilepsy who drive. The RAM was applied in four studies for its combined individual and group evaluative approach. It was used to develop recommendations or imaging, create quality-of-care indicators for infantile spasms, and establish a web-based tool for assessing surgical candidacy. Consensus methodologies are crucial to inform robust CBR for epilepsy management where clinical practice guidelines are not possible due to limited evidence. The best method depends on the study goal and available resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":"67 3","pages":"1032-1048"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13007833/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/epi.70039","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Consensus-based recommendations (CBRs) are essential for health care decision-making when evidence is limited or conflicting. They can be developed using established methodologies such as the Delphi technique, the nominal group technique (NGT), and the RAND Corporation/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method (RAM). This review explores the advantages and disadvantages of these methods and their applications in epilepsy. A narrative review using PubMed (November 22, 2017 to November 22, 2022) was undertaken examining publications describing Delphi, NGT, and RAM. The frequency of use of each method and their applications in epilepsy care were also reviewed (1966 to October 31, 2023). Sixteen articles were included describing the different consensus-based methods. The advantages and disadvantages of each method varied widely. The Delphi technique, the most widely used method, emerged as adaptable for instances with limited evidence or impracticality of face-to-face interactions. Although NGT favors prompt consensus in single-session formats, the RAM offers a balanced approach with its hybrid structure. We identified 64 epilepsy studies that used consensus methods, with 58 utilizing the most widely used technique, the Delphi. The Delphi guided consensus mostly for management including for individuals with rare conditions such as myoclonic–atonic seizures or in those with epilepsy and pregnancy. The NGT guided expert consensus on the use of cannabidiol for Dravet and Lennox–Gastaut syndromes and facilitated decision-making among pharmacy students addressing ethical issues related to patients with epilepsy who drive. The RAM was applied in four studies for its combined individual and group evaluative approach. It was used to develop recommendations or imaging, create quality-of-care indicators for infantile spasms, and establish a web-based tool for assessing surgical candidacy. Consensus methodologies are crucial to inform robust CBR for epilepsy management where clinical practice guidelines are not possible due to limited evidence. The best method depends on the study goal and available resources.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在癫痫治疗中制定和应用基于共识的建议的方法:叙述性回顾。
当证据有限或相互矛盾时,基于共识的建议(CBRs)对卫生保健决策至关重要。它们可以使用既定的方法来开发,如德尔菲技术、名义小组技术(NGT)和兰德公司/加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)适当性方法(RAM)。本文就这些方法的优缺点及其在癫痫中的应用作一综述。使用PubMed(2017年11月22日至2022年11月22日)对描述Delphi、NGT和RAM的出版物进行了叙述性回顾。本文还回顾了1966年至2023年10月31日期间各方法的使用频率及其在癫痫治疗中的应用情况。包括16篇文章,描述了不同的基于共识的方法。每种方法的优缺点差别很大。德尔菲技术,最广泛使用的方法,出现适用于有限的证据或不现实的面对面互动的实例。虽然NGT倾向于在单会话格式中迅速达成共识,但RAM的混合结构提供了一种平衡的方法。我们确定了64项使用共识方法的癫痫研究,其中58项使用了最广泛使用的德尔菲技术。德尔菲指导共识主要用于管理,包括患有罕见疾病的个体,如肌阵挛性癫痫发作或癫痫和妊娠。NGT引导专家就使用大麻二酚治疗德拉韦综合征和Lennox-Gastaut综合征达成共识,并促进药学专业学生解决与癫痫患者驾驶相关的伦理问题。RAM被应用于四项研究,其结合了个人和团体的评估方法。它被用来制定建议或成像,创建婴儿痉挛的护理质量指标,并建立一个基于网络的评估手术候选资格的工具。共识方法对于为癫痫管理提供强有力的CBR至关重要,因为临床实践指南由于证据有限而无法实现。最好的方法取决于学习目标和可用的资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
期刊最新文献
Folic acid supplementation and prevention of adverse offspring outcomes among women with epilepsy: An observational study. Increased interval between seizure clusters across time in pediatric patients treated with the immediate-use seizure medication diazepam nasal spray. The International Classification of Cognitive Disorders in Epilepsy (IC-CoDE) Portal: An open source resource for neuropsychological research in epilepsy. Quantitative electroencephalographic measures during postmalarial epileptogenesis. WONOEP XVII appraisal: The role of the extracellular matrix in epilepsy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1